Changes

:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''How do we define "scientist'' in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."  

:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."  

:Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)